The core meaning of the Latin perfect tense is that the action occurred in the past and the consequences endure into the present. "Gaul was and still is divided". "Gaul has been divided". I doubt Romans would have felt a distinction in their minds between the periphrastic perfect passive and the past participle used as a predicate adjective. The distinction is in the English translation--sometimes it's better to translate an expression with the English preterite or perfect tenses and sometimes as an attributive adjective in the present tense. But there's no touchstone. You can never translate mechanically--you need to translate in a way that reads well in English.

Only "the roof is made of wood and looks lovely" encompasses existence continued into the present."Tectum ligo factum [participium adjectivum] est et bonâ facie est."Continuò autem exstare per hanc subauditur.

My question arose when I saw, in Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar (1903), p. 311, the statement Gallia est divisa translated as a predicate adjective (Gaul is divided.). I looked briefly at the context of this head statement in Caesar's BELLO GALLICO, and in my opinion (which at my level is of course of very little merit), felt that it just as well could have been translated as a periphrastic perfect passive. I checked with Woodcock's A New Latin Syntax (1959) in section VII 'The Use of Participles,' at p. 79: which provides, in part: "The perfect participle in -tus originally denoted a state, so that Hannibal victus est meant firstly 'Hannibal is beaten' (of a present state). But this, for practical purposes, is equivalent to saying 'Hannibal has been beaten') of an act completed). Thus victus est came to be used as the passive tense-equivalent of vicit, and in both senses of vicit (true perfect, and aorist). Nevertheless victus could still be used as a predicated adjective, so that Hannival (sic) victus est, erat, erit, may mean either 'Hannibal is, was, will be, a beaten man', or 'Hannibal has been, had been, will have been beaten', according to the context."

A&G clearly state in sect. 495, p.313: "Participles are often used as Predicate Adjectives. As such they may be joined to the subject by esse or a copulative verb. ... NOTE. -- From this predicate use arise the compound tenses of the passive, -- the participle of completed action with the incomplete tenses of esse developing the idea of past time, as, interfectus est, he was (or has been) killed, lit. he is having-been-killed (i.e., already slain)."

As a related aside: both of these modern Latin Grammars also recognize the use by Latin authors of the perfect participle with fui, fuisti... fueram, fueras... fuero, fueris....

I find some understanding of the history and evolution of the participle in these Grammars, but not any really helpful guidance or hint on how to translate the construction in this remote and isolated corner of the universe now 2000 some odd years from the time when these statements were uttered. Context is of course helpful evidence, albeit hearsay.

There's no way to tell from the Latin. The two usages are semantically very close, if not indistinguishable, because the attributive adjective in the present is the result of the action of the verb in the past. The distinction is drawn in English, so you have to decide on a case-by-case basis whether you want to translate a given expression with the present tense of esse and a past participle as a past-tense passive verb or as an attributive adjective with a present tense form of the verb "to be." Again, given that the two alternatives are semantically nearly equivalent and grammatically undistinguished in Latin, I doubt whether native speakers of Latin even drew a distinction in their own minds--I suspect that the distinction drawn in the grammar books is merely an illusion that arise from the fact that English draws this distinction--but in translating into English you have to make a choice, and there are no clues in the Latin.

However, there are many past participles whose meanings have become detached from the verbs from which they are derived and have become true adjectives in their own right, e.g., rectus, "straight", from rego, "to govern", "control". Again, there will be no clues in the Latin--you have to decide based on the context.

(On reflection, I think I misstated earlier when I wrote that the core meaning of the Latin perfect is that a past action has resulted in a state that endures into the present--the perfect is used to indicate a punctual action in the past--but the focus of the perfect is on the completed result of the action.)

Adrianus, I think I may have led you astray by my incorrect use of the term "appositive" adjective--the issue here is the "predicate" adjective, the adjective as a complement of a form of the verb esse. Let me restate what I intended to say and apologize for the confusion.

In classical Latin (roughly through the "Silver Age", or first century CE), at least, there is no formal distinction between a past participle used as a predicate adjective and a past participle used in the periphrastic tenses of the passive voice -- perfect, pluperfect and future perfect. There is such a formal distinction in English--as well as other languages including French and Italian, but in the absence of a formal distinction in classical Latin, there is no way to tell whether speakers of Latin in the classical era drew such a distinction between two constructions that are semantically very close to one another--since the past participle represents the completion/result of the action of the verb. (As I mentioned, I suspect that speakers of classical Latin didn't draw such a distinction, but of course they can't tell us whether they did or not.) Eventually, in post-classical Latin, we do find evidence that such a distinction was drawn and reflected in the verbal forms.

Because the distinction between periphrastic passive and predicate adjective isn't reflected formally in classical Latin, the distinction between periphrastic passive and predicate adjective has to drawn in translating classical authors into English or French based on solely context. The text provides no guidance: there's no way to tell from the formal written language itself whether a given expression should be translated as a predicate adjective or as a perfect passive. That's the answer to the question originally raised by sunhawk.

The distinction in question here is not between "Les pages, je les ai déchirées" (this is perfect active, not passive) and "les pages déchirées" (an attributive adjective), but rather between "Les pages ont été déchirées" and "les pages sont déchirées".

I hope this is clearer, and, again, I apologize for my misuse of the term "appositive adjective" instead of "predicate adjective."

Qimmik wrote:(As I mentioned, I suspect that speakers of classical Latin didn't draw such a distinction, but of course they can't tell us whether they did or not.) Eventually, in post-classical Latin, we do find evidence that such a distinction was drawn and reflected in the verbal forms.

The existence in ALL periods (according to A&G, §495 note) of "[participium] fuisse" as a form generally indistinguishable from "[participium] esse" is evidence enough for me that native speakers recognised the verbal-adjectival tension as ambiguous in tense terms.

Thank you both for your responses. I have read many of your responses on the Textkit forum and I have come to appreciate and respect your knowledge of and love for Latin.

By way of introduction, following back surgery last year, I completed a review of 1st year Greek and Latin that I had taken in my undergraduate years (the mid to late 1960's). The Latin text that I used was LLPSI-I's Familia Romana -- which I found relatively easy). I am now plodding through LLPSI-II. I was a bit surprised to discover the non-transitional leap to a tougher level of Latin in the Roma Aeterna text. I am, however, enjoying every minute of reading. My undergraduate degree was in Classical History and Languages.

I have an undergraduate degree in Classics, from around the same time frame (late 1960s). Since then I've tried to keep up by reading Latin & Greek. I also have back problems, as well as knee replacements.

Backs, knees and latinI did latin in the late sixties for three years at school. I loved it. I did chemical engineering, a science policy masters and then a history and philosophy of science doctorate on seventeenth-century French scientific institutions. I felt guilty about getting away without having latin so I used to collect books and comics in Latin with a view to learning in later life. I started learning in 2004, using Latin to explore language-learning issues in eLearning design. I had a bicycling accident in the 1980s and took up yoga and taekwondo for the back issues I was having. I stopped doing taekwondo and yoga and the back problems come back periodically but are kept at bay by rest and exercise. Taekwondo also gave me a minor problem on one knee. The exercise I now do is barefoot hill running and, as long as my knees work, I'll get the most use out of them that I can before they pack up altogether.

Go figure, the chances that we are all of the same age and similar health issues -- well not so much a surprise with the similar health issues. To answer the query by adrianus: my third back surgery resulted in a fusion of the S1/L5/L4 with a complex titanium cage. I have had very little success with getting past the pain, even though in December it will have been 2 years since the surgery. I try to walk two to three miles several times a week. I am doing some low impact lower back exercises. Guess I shall have to adapt and move on. Joy-joy. Next week I shall be 70 years of age. Have had a good life thus far -- 10 children and 24 grandchildren and one great grandchild -- so far. My really fun stuff is riding one of my Harleys (I have a Dyna Super Glide and a Road King Classic). I let my hair down and hang out with some local motorcycle clubs (not a member). Gives me some lost childhood time -- I guess! They kid me and tell me that I can't have a beer when I show up at a biker rally in leathers with a Latin text book!! Barefoot hill running? Hummmm -- that sounds like something I would like to try.Qimmik: how are the knee replacements? I am beginning to feel like I may need a right hip looked at.As a closing thought. I love studying Latin; but of all the languages that I have dabbled with --nothing comes close to Esperanto and its philosophy.

Barefoot is better for the knees than running in shoes because, 1, you tend to run more carefully and slower, and 2. you run on the balls of the feet rather than the heel. Vibrams give protection but sandals are just as good in that regard. My Vibrams sit in the cupboard. I just do proper barefoot and that's a hundred times more fun than with Vibrams or sandals (provided that you don't mind the occasional pain from stony paths—but I quite enjoy that pain).

adrianus: I take it that you run on concrete, asphalt, bark or hard dirt trails that occasionally have stones in the path, and that "stony path" does not mean a rock/gravel trail. I am going to try the technique. I agree, intuitively, with the notion of running on the balls of the feet instead of the heals. That method would seem to obtain a very efficient shock absorber and an efficient "spring" to aid in the running motion.

Thanks for the well-wishes, also.

I will post another Latin question in a day or two. I look forward to your response, if you notice it and wish to respond.

I do mean that I run partly on a gravel path for about half a mile each time. I wish it weren't there but, because it is, I don't want to avoid running it. I would run around it if I could but running it makes me alive to the fact that there are worse pains. It's bearable (just) and toughens my soles in a more accelerated way. I wouldn't recommend it to another, though, less masochistic than I.